House of Commons Hansard Debates for 27 Nov 1991

Mr. Ronnie Fearn (Southport) : After 12 years of office, the Government have little to be proud of when it comes to housing. They have presided over record levels of homelessness, record rent levels and record levels of house repossessions. The hallmark of any civilised society is its ability to house its citizens properly. People have a fundamental right to decent affordable housing, a right that the Government attempted to capitalise on with their ideology of a property-owning democracy. The right -to-buy policy was the Government's flagship in 1980, but because it was implemented as part and parcel of Conservative mania to reduce public spending and to restrict the powers of local government, it has contributed to the present scandalous homeless and housing crisis which is growing all the time.

Shelter's most recent report put the number of homeless people at 350,000. Some estimates are set even higher, at 500,000. As many as 8,000 people sleep rough every night. Age Concern believes that 30 per cent. of those people are over 50 years of age, many of them with disabilities. But the number of disabled persons who are homeless and on our streets are not just among the elderly. The November issue of Disability Now quotes a new survey in Nottingham carried out among 50 homeless people between the ages of 16 and 25, which found that the majority had disabilities.

How the Government can come to the House today and call that a success is beyond belief. It is a disgrace. We are a supposedly civilised society approaching the 21st century, we have wonderful technology and great expertise, we play our part on the world stage--yet we fail miserably when it comes to housing our people. The previous Prime Minister held up a dream of home ownership. The Government raised expectations but failed to deliver to thousands of people. Not only that, they also took away the choice of how people housed themselves. The right to choose figured prominently in all the Government's rhetoric, but when policies were implemented, choice was eliminated for most people.

The Government's housing policy was aimed at home ownership, to the detriment of the provision of affordable housing to rent. Many people looking for somewhere to live had little choice but to buy, often with 100 per cent. mortgages. For others, the opportunity was a dream come

Column 958

true. They believed the rhetoric and entered the property market. I accept that many of those people have never looked back, but thousands of others have.

Mortgage repossessions have reached record proportions throughout the country. As many as 100,000 to 120,000 houses will have been repossessed by the end of the year. With the current level of people in arrears running at 750,000, of which 162,000 are more than six months in arrears, that figure is set to go even higher next year. The situation could be made worse if and when the housing market picks up because at the moment some building societies are holding back from repossessing because of falling house values. As soon as they see a turn in the market, they will begin the repossession process, and many more families will be evicted.

The Government are in for a nasty shock. Come the general election, they may find themselves evicted from the House, but that eviction will be the result of their own actions, unlike the fate of many of the homeless and those who have had their homes repossessed. The Government have mismanaged the economy, introduced high interest rates, implemented housing policies but neglected the need for social housing and presided over the boom and bust cycle which has contributed to the depressed housing market. In recent weeks, the Government have tried to talk up the economy, but they have failed to convince anybody that recovery is around the corner.

It is not difficult to see why the Government have failed when industries such as the construction industry are on their knees. As Sir Clifford Chetwood, chairman of Wimpey, was reported as saying in The Guardian on 26 November, the construction industry is in "shocking crisis", with no prospect of a return to growth until 1993. He has forecast 250,000 job losses by next summer, with as many as 5, 000 firms going to the wall before the end of this year. He says that the country is on the brink of a housing crisis with a shortfall of 1 million homes.

Some of us have been only too aware for a long time that housing in Britain was in crisis. Most of us have only to look around to see the homeless on our streets or to visit some of the homeless organisations such as the Simon community, which I have visited twice. There are many in that community who are sleeping rough. I expected there to be 40 in Lincoln's Inn Fields, but when I went, there were 260 people. Most of them have jobs ; none of them have homes because they cannot afford the three months' rent.

With the construction industry depressed, with some building societies and mortgage lenders in trouble and with unemployment continuing to rise, the housing market is set to continue to fall, and Britain's economic recovery will be further delayed. The Government must take the initiative and look to ways to reduce repossessions and the number of homeless and to provide more homes for rent.

In the short term, much can be done which will have some immediate effect. The recently announced scheme to allow housing associations to take over repossessed homes to house homeless families for a year is a beginning, but if that is to be the only scheme, it is somewhat misguided. There is not much sense in turfing one family out into the cold in order to house another which, on present trends, will be homeless again within a year unless there is some guarantee of permanent housing.

Column 959

The Government must use their initiative and power to prevent repossessions in the first place. They must introduce sensible mortgage rescue schemes. The transfer of mortgages to shared ownership schemes with local authorities and housing associations is one such scheme which will work. Local authorities already have the power to set up mortgage rescue schemes with housing associations, but the Government should find ways to encourage the extension of such schemes.

Mortgage lenders must take some of the blame for the current repossession crisis. I was pleased that the Minister mentioned that. Far too often in the past, lenders have been, if not irresponsible, over-enthusiastic. I do not want a return to the days when it was virtually impossible to obtain a mortgage, but I feel that lenders should be more responsible. Perhaps they will be : there is nothing like a nasty case of burnt fingers to restrict lending.

Mortgage-to-rent schemes should also be encouraged, since they would benefit lenders as well as families in arrears. Rather than selling at auction, possibly at a loss, lenders could hold on to properties that might appreciate in value, while continuing to receive a regular income from those properties. Tenancies could be short or long term, and, if necessary, housing benefit could be provided to make the rent affordable. If such schemes are to appeal to building societies, they may have to be administered by local authorities or other housing agencies. A shared- ownership scheme would also benefit both lenders and families in arrears.

Another possibility is a mortgage-to-rent scheme with the option to buy back. Regardless of which scheme is introduced, however, Liberal Democrats recognise that the lenders would need some assistance. We suggest that the portion of income support that is allocated for mortgage repayments be paid to them directly.

Other problems also need attention urgently. The Government must tackle homelessness in general. To help young single people, we advocate reform of the social security system, enabling income support to be paid in advance and restoring the full rate of income support to the under-25s. Family credit entitlement should be adjusted to reflect liability for mortgage interest payments. The Government should also investigate the possibility of a housing benefit allocation that takes into account mortgage interest payments. I understand that reducing mortgage tax relief from 25 per cent. to 23.5 per cent. would release £400 million--the estimated cost of paying housing benefit for mortgage interest payments. That information is contained in a report by the Council of Mortgage Lenders entitled "Time for Mortgage Benefits", which is due to be published later this week. Perhaps the Minister will look at it. The lifting of the restrictions on capital receipts from the sale of council houses would provide an immediate injection of cash for the housing market. It would provide more homes, and it would also create jobs. Our party's programme would increase the percentage of council house and land sale receipts that can be spent by local authorities from 25 per cent. to 75 per cent. when the money is to be spent on repairs and renovation.

The Government's housing policy has led to many untenable situations. Let me give an example of the ridiculous state of housing finance and the false economies

Column 960

that have been made. Because of the lack of affordable housing to rent, and the lack of funds to bring poor housing up to standard, many local authorities have to resort to providing bed-and- breakfast accommodation. According to the Audit Commission figures for 1990, the cost in the first year of such accommodation in London is £15,540 ; the cost in the first year of building a home to rent is £8,200. Outside the metropolitan districts, the figures are £5,475 and £5,000 respectively. Those figures speak volumes about the absurd way in which the Government run their housing policy.

So far, the Government's response to the housing crisis has been dismal. Palliatives are not enough ; we need fundamental change. Unless the Government take action now, the nation's housing needs will continue to increase and the current state of affairs will continue to go down- hill.

6.24 pm

Sir Timothy Raison (Aylesbury) : The debate has been marked by three speeches in particular. First, there was the maiden speech by the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Dr. Kumar), which was heard with much appreciation. Then there was the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). I served on the Standing Committee that considered the Housing Finance Bill in 1972 : that was the longest Committee stage that we had experienced, and it seemed even longer than it was. I was struck then by the enormous skill and patience with which my right hon. Friend handled the Committee : he provided a model for others. I support his view that progress can best be achieved when there is a measure of agreement between the parties.

As always, we heard a very good speech from my hon. Friend the Minister, who dealt effectively with the somewhat lengthy speech by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). My hon. Friend demonstrated that the Government care a great deal about the problems of people who are having difficulty in making mortgage payments, and that a number of effective actions are being taken. We were pleased to hear that, for real distress is plainly being caused.

There is no doubt that the measures that we took in the 1980s to widen home ownership were completely justified. I do not accept for a moment that the existence of the problems that I have just acknowledged undermines the enormous success and importance of that move. We all know that our policy in that regard will not be reversed by any other political party. However, we also know that housing policy cannot stand still. There are always new problems : we never reach a happy plateau on which there is nothing to worry about. We should be concerned about the difficulty of providing low- cost housing, for instance.

That difficulty is partly due to demographic factors. It is also due to family breakdown, which, sadly, is placing a good deal of pressure on housing, as most of us know from our constituency surgeries. We must tackle that problem. We could gain some useful assistance with overall housing strategy from the excellent report that followed the Duke of Edinburgh's inquiry into British housing, which came out in the summer. I should have liked to say more about that, but time is short.

My constituents are likely to experience worse problems over the next year or so. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will recognise that, and will ensure

Column 961

that our policies can help. The essence of the problem is the drying up of council building, and the lack of housing association building to offset that. Until now, we were doing reasonably well. Our building programme has worked, although there has never been much housing association building for general needs.

I fear that we are going to run into difficulties. Approval for new council building in my area has been ended. There has been a sharp drop from an allocation of more than £3 million in 1985-86 for Aylesbury Vale district council to £367,000 in 1991-92, and that allocation is for improvements, not new building. This year, the waiting list will probably double. The council operates an extremely restrictive policy--it is pretty hard to get on to the waiting list--and the position is set to worsen.

Homelessness increased by about 25 per cent. between 1990 and 1991. Only about 62 housing association units are planned for next year, and, while about 40 shared-ownership units were provided by the council this year, housing associations will provide only about 19 next year. All that will mean some fairly tough problems--not for me, because I shall not be standing in the next election, but for my successor.

Wycombe district council will need, it estimates, about 1,500 units of low- cost housing over the next five years. That is based on need ; it is not simply a question of demand. According to present plans, it looks as though housing associations wil provide only 300 of those units. It is likely, therefore, that there will be a serious shortfall in Wycombe district council's housing provision. It has to provide for 700 homeless people this year and it has 200 people in temporary accommodation. What is happening in my constituency cannot possibly be unique. It must be happening elsewhere.

What can we do about it ? First, we have to recognise the problems. I am sure that the Minister does recognise them. Secondly, I do not mind whether the problem is tackled by an increase in the amount of private rented accommodation, or by increasing the allocation to housing associations, or even by more cuts in council building. We still need a horses-for-courses policy. The problem must be tackled by one means or another.

The debate has focused primarily on mortgage payments, but I hope that the Minister will bear in mind that in many parts of the country low-cost housing presents real problems. In their amendment to the motion the Government rightly say that housing policy is not about just one issue but about a wide variety of issues. I am confident that the Government will bring forward measures that ensure that low-cost housing can be made available to people who badly need it. 6.31 pm

Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North) : This an Opposition Day. When the Liberal Democrats have a Supply Day I hope that the Chair will take into account the length of the speech of the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn).

The debate has greatly benefited from the fine and comprehensive maiden speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Dr. Kumar). He demonstrated his deep roots in the constituency and his detailed knowledge of the problems that face it, as well as the qualities of the constituency. He demonstrated also the analytical skills which, as a scientist, he brings to the

Column 962

House. He analysed the problems faced by his constituency in the context of the Government's policy. We shall be pleased to listen to my hon. Friend on many occasions in the years to come.

The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) made a great deal of the recent 4.5 per cent. cut in interest rates. That is very important. However, the Minister failed to recall the fact that it was this Government who sent interest rates into the stratosphere. It is one thing to boast about a reduction in interest rates and the effects that may have had : it is another thing to claim credit for bringing them down, having sent them up into the stratosphere in the first place. Under this Government, average interest rates have been higher than at any time under any Labour Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) made abundantly clear, the Government's record speaks for itself.

The Minister referred to the Labour party's response to housing action trusts. Occasionally, he is somewhat disingenuous when presenting his case, and this was one such occasion. The Minister sat as a Back Bencher all the way through the Committee proceedings on the 1988 Housing Bill.

Sir George Young indicated dissent.

Mr. Howarth : The Minister intimates that he did not do so, but he certainly took a close interest in the passage of that Bill. He will be aware that a series of amendments were tabled in that Committee, on Report and in the other place by my hon. Friends and me. The amendments would have made housing action trusts more open, in that they would have been the subject of a genuine ballot of the tenants and would have provided tenants with the option to revert to local authority control. The Government rejected all those amendments. We are able to say now that in certain circumstances, where there is local support, we are prepared to accept housing action trusts, because the amendments that we tabled at that time but which were rejected were ultimately accepted by the Government. All parts of the House will accept as constructive many of the comments made by the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). What I have just said, however, about housing action trusts undermines the right hon. Gentleman's point. The right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) also made a fairly constructive and in some respects progressive speech. I refer him to the motion, in which he will find much more to agree with than he will find in the Government's amendment.

The genesis of the housing crisis was during the former reign of the Secretary of State for the Environment, accompanied by the hon. Member for Acton, who, in his first incarnation as a Minister with responsibility for housing, was a member of the terrible duo that is now reinflicting itself on housing policy.

The housing problems that we now face were foreshadowed by the Opposition. We warned the Government that they would eventually have to be dealt with. I refer the House to the Committee proceedings on the 1980 Housing Bill, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said :

"The Secretary of State"--

the same Secretary of State as we have now--

"who has the effrontery to talk about enough new house building to meet demand, is certain to leave office with the unenviable record of having not only presided over but

Column 963

deliberately brought about the worst housing programme since the war."--[ Official Report, 15 January 1980 ; Vol. 976, c. 1559.] My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith has already made it clear that that prediction has come true.

Mr. Hood : Will my hon. Friend comment on the visit of the Moderator of the Church of Scotland to London yesterday, when he spoke at Dover house in Whitehall and reminded the Secretary of State for Scotland that 25 per cent. of all the homeless people sleeping rough in London come from Scotland? Is not the real cause of people sleeping rough the fact that we are not providing homes for them in their own part of the country?

Mr. Howarth : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Acton announced that about 1,800 places had been provided, as a direct result of Government initiatives, for people who otherwise would be sleeping rough. According to the Government's statistics, that means that between 7,000 and 8,000 people are still sleeping rough every night of the week. Those statistics were given to a Select Committee last year by the permanent secretary to the Department of the Environment. Either they have gone down, or they have stayed the same. It means that about 5,000 or 6,000 people are sleeping on the streets of London and elsewhere. The Government are complacent and smug. They have acted too late and have not done enough.

Sir George Young rose --

Mr. Howarth : I shall not give way to the Minister, not because I am being discourteous but because he refused to give way earlier and took up over 30 minutes of the debate.

The genesis of the problem is the Government's policy of the early 1980s. Nothing illustrates more clearly the Government's appeals for people to become owner-occupiers than the words of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) at the October 1986 Conservative party conference :

"The great political reform of the last century was to enable more and more people to have a vote. Now, the great Tory reform of this century is to enable more and more people to own property." Those words are unwelcome to all those facing homelessness and repossession, who in good faith became owner-occupiers and now find themselves unable to cope with their commitments because of the recent high interest rates.

Let us not collude with any pretence that the repossession problem has not been created by the Government's relentless promotion of owner-occupation as the only housing solution. It is worth pointing out that by reducing the supply of rented accommodation, across all types of tenure, the Government have closed off many escape routes that might otherwise have been available.

The facts of the problem are a stark and sorry saga. About 85,000 repossessions are officially acknowledged and, by the end of the year, it is likely to be 100,000 or even 120,000. About 750,000 owner-occupiers are in arrears and are at risk of having their property repossessed at some time in the future if they cannot resolve their problems.

What is the Minister's response? One response is that of smug complacency. On "World in Action" earlier this

Column 964

week, the Minister said that most lenders are offering a range of options. He enlightened the House on those options today. Does he suppose that those 85,000 people who have already had their homes repossessed were aware of the options but simply ignored them and let themselves be put out into the street? Of course they were not aware of them and the Government have done nothing to make them aware of them.

The Government's recent announcement--another panic public relations exercise with no real substance--underlines their inadequate response. First, homes will be repossessed by building societies. Secondly, the occupants will have either to fend for themselves or to fall back on the local authorities for temporary accommodation. After being repossessed by a building society or bank, their home will, through a housing association, be rented to another family who have had their home repossessed. What nonsense. It is musical houses--when the music stops, everybody changes house. It does not have the fun of musical chairs, because the game involves thousands of human tragedies. What is the politics of this? We should look at the

November-December issue of Roof, in which the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) put his view succinctly :

"I have never seen such personal misery in all of my 25 years as a Member of Parliament."

Perhaps more interesting is a source quoted as a senior Conservative whip-- unnamed :

"It's now clear the balance has to be redressed between home ownership and renting. There's also a continuing need for social housing which we recognise--we're not daft".

I take issue with the latter part of his remarks.

The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) is quoted in the same publication :

"If people borrow more than they ought to, they will have to bloody well learn."

There is plenty of sympathy there.

Perhaps we should take the word of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) :

"I haven't had a single letter on the subject. Unless I see figures which suggest otherwise, I won't believe that repossession leads to homelessness."

Those are the views of Conservative Back Benchers. They are uncharitable, unkind and disingenuous, particularly those who claim that they did not know what was happening. Several of those hon. Members are sitting on majorities of fewer than 2,000 or 5,000, and the electorate will take their revenge at the next general election. The figures for housing starts across all sections have been quoted. It is sufficient to say that new build in the private rented sector, local authorities and housing associations is on the decline. Inevitably, the gap between the supply of housing and the number of people who need it will grow and grow. The contrast is stark between what the Government are doing and the programme for a mortgage rescue package outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith. Within days of taking office, a Labour Government will call in all the interested parties--local authorities, housing associations, building societies, banks and the agencies that deal with homelessness. We shall put together a crash homelessness package and mortgage rescue package to deal with the homelessness caused by the Government's years of inactivity. The Secretary of State and his Ministers have proved time and again during their two terms of office in the Department that they are unfit to deal with

Column 965

housing. Only a Labour Government will deal with it, and we look forward to the day--it will be soon--when we have an opportunity to do so. I urge the House to support the motion.

6.46 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo) : This has been a useful and timely debate, but not for thereasons that the Opposition intended. It has demonstrated beyond any doubt that the new thinking and well-informed contributions come from Conservative Members, while from the Opposition we hear nothing but bluster and ignorance.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Dr. Kumar) on his thoughtful maiden speech. We look forward to further contributions from him. I was interested in what he had to say. In Middlesbrough, not far from his constituency, was one of the winners of this year's city challenge initiative, with a bid that included a large housing element. The bid will tackle many of the objectives to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I hope that, as one of the 57 urban programme authorities, Langbaurgh will take the opportunity of bidding in the city challenge initiative next year, when it may receive extra funds from central Government to deal with the issues concerning the hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Member for Langbaurgh's reference to his predecessor, Richard Holt, was much appreciated by Conservative Members. I am sorry that Mr. Speaker was not here to listen to that reference, since I know that Richard Holt was a friendly adversary of Mr. Speaker.

There have been some first-class speeches during this short debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), a former Minister responsible for housing, showed that he has lost none of his grasp and expertise on the subject. We welcome the support that he expressed for housing associations. He was right to stress the importance of maximising the contribution that private funds can make to supplement the contribution from the taxpayers. Last year over £800 million was lent from the private sector to housing associations, and this year over £400 million is to be lent from the same source. My hon. Friend the Minister has put in hand a study of ways in which it may be possible to increase the flow of private finance. We hope to have the results of that study early next year. I shall take note of my right hon. Friend's suggestion about total cost indicators and the frequency with which they are adjusted. I share his view about the desirability of promoting best practice among housing associations and others to minimise the rate of repossession.

In painful contrast to my right hon. Friend's speech, the House heard an ignorant and rather sour contribution from the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn). The less that is said about it the better.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) made an eloquent plea about the shortage of affordable housing. The Government are addressing the matter urgently. We have doubled the funding of the housing association movement. I hope that my right hon. Friend's constituency and district council will receive a proper share.

I should like to make two further points to my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, one of which is relevant to all rural areas. Once a needs study has been

Column 966

conducted in a small rural village settlement, the exceptions policy allows a local authority to give permission for development on land that may have been obtained at nil cost or at a low cost that does not reflect its development value. That is one way of achieving a supply of low-cost housing in rural areas.

Using the same philosophy, in May we published circular 791, which encourages local authorities to negotiate with private developers for low- cost housing to be included in new housing schemes. I want local authorities to take advantage of that huge and exciting new opportunity. There is now a chance for them to play a proper enabling role, bringing together housing and planning departments to meet local housing need.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), who attempted to intervene earlier in the debate, made an important point about the Housing Corporation's distribution of funds to housing associations. I shall write to him about that.

Mr. Dennis Turner (Wolverhampton, South-East) : Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Yeo : No, I do not have time.

The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) was off the mark in his statistics on rough sleepers. The census showed that there were 1,300 rough sleepers in London and 1,400 elsewhere, making a total of 2,700. The figures that are thrown around of thousands of rough sleepers are without foundation. I am glad to reiterate what my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning said : there will be 1,800 places in permanent accommodation for people who have been sleeping rough in London, in addition to 1,000 hostel places.

Mr. George Howarth : Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Yeo : No, I do not have time.

The hon. Members for Knowsley, North and for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) mentioned mortgage repossessions, but they overlooked the fact that the Department of Social Security pays £500 million of income support a year exclusively to meet the mortgage interest commitments of income support claimants. That is a huge programme, which is likely to increase this year, and its effect is precisely to achieve the objective that we all share--to prevent repossessions. The Opposition remain addicted to the solutions of the 1960s, regardless of their failure then and their irrelevance now. Their approach to the problem, and to almost every other problem, is to mouth carefully crafted phrases that are selected for their ambiguity. The purpose is to convey the message to the audience that Labour would spend more money on this or that group, but without giving a firm commitment.

That blatant attempt to deceive his clients is unworthy of a former probation officer such as the hon. Member for Hammersmith. It is a new form of fraudulent misrepresentation. It can usually be heard in the House when the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) is absent. If she were here, she might have to confirm that her priorities are confined to social security issues. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Hammersmith is able to say that Labour would spend that £100 million.

Mr. Soley indicated assent.

Column 967

Mr. Yeo : The hon. Gentleman is confirming that he would spend that. I am glad. I wonder how near the bottom of Labour's ever-lengthening list of spending promises that pledge is.

Mr. Soley : I have told the House a number of times, but I shall tell the Minister again, that we would save £50 million on the mortgage repossession bed-and-breakfast costs in London alone.

Mr. Yeo : That is certainly helpful clarification. I think that what the hon. Member is trying to say is that there would not be any new money.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith included 16 priorities in the document that he published this year, all of which were uncosted and no order of preference was given. The mortgage rescue scheme was one of the priorities. I should like to quote from another old Labour favourite :

"the lifting of constraints on direct labour organisations". I am not surprised that the hon. Member forgot to mention that, as today the newspapers have reported the illegal award of contracts to direct labour organisations by Lambeth borough council. That pledge will fill many tenants with absolute dread. I imagine that it was included at the request of the hon. Gentleman's cronies in the trades union movement. At least we can understand why he has not tried to put a price on it.

Either way, Labour's version of the mortgage rescue scheme seems to set some new benchmark in cost-effectiveness. It is startling, even by Labour's standards. For £100 million, whether it is new taxpayers' money or not, not a single new unit of housing is added to existing stock. For £100 million, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) pointed out, only a tiny fraction of the families who are facing repossession would receive any help. It is not the wasteful use of taxpayers' money that characterises it as a Labour proposal but the typically dominant role that the hon. Member for Hammersmith foresees for local authorities.

That is the real hallmark. Whatever question one asks on housing policy, Labour's answer is always the same : give the local authorities more cash and, with any luck, they will use it to buy some more private sector homes. It is straight back to the council monopoly landlord : take away tenants' choice, drive out owner-occupiers and let the council take over. In Liverpool, that system left almost one council property in 10 empty. That system left almost a third of the rent in Lambeth uncollected, with a similar proportion in Southwark. More than £40 million should have been taken from tenants to repair and improve stock. Labour's vision of the future is the sink estates and unwanted tower blocks.

This afternoon, Labour has tried to portray the huge expansion of owner- occupation in the past 12 years as some kind of disaster. Seven million first-time buyers since 1979 could tell Labour that they know that it is not a disaster. One and a quarter million former local authority tenants who exercised their right to buy could tell Labour that it is not a disaster. The 49 out of every 50 mortgage payers who are not in arrears or facing repossession could tell Labour that it is not a disaster. All those people know that the growth of owner-occupation has been one of the huge success stories of the 1980s.

Just as we extended tenants' rights in the 1980s in the teeth of Labour party hostility, so we shall do the same in the 1990s. Whether it is tenant -led housing action trusts,

Column 968

rents to mortgage or large-scale voluntary transfers, tenants are enjoying new freedoms to choose their future--who their landlord is, how their estate is run and what form of tenure they should have. Just as Labour fought tooth and nail against the right to buy, so it rubbishes HATs, rent-to-mortgage schemes and large-scale voluntary transfers.

In the end, Labour saw the light of day and did a U-turn on the right to buy. Who knows, after 12 more years of glorious Tory government it may be forced, by popular support for those Tory initiatives, to do U-turns on them, too.

The extent of the Government's commitment can be seen in the huge resources that are being devoted to housing--not just the £7.8 billion of Department of the Environment spending but another £7.8 billion of tax relief to home buyers. That has increased two and a half times in real terms since 1979. Over the same period, spending on housing benefit has doubled in real terms to £4.6 billion. That is £17 billion of taxpayers' money in the form of cash and tax reliefs, in addition to the £1 billion of private sector lending that I have already referred to.

The Government have a multi-faceted approach to housing policy. We are promoting home ownership through the right to buy, rents to mortgages and shared ownership for families that cannot afford to buy outright. We are promoting the construction of more affordable homes under circular 791, which is opening up new horizons.

We are promoting a variety of rented properties in the private sector through the enormous growth in shared shorthold tenancies made possible by the Housing Act 1988, a growth which is now taking place at a faster rate than the decline in the old secure tenancies as they disappear. We are also promoting a range of other initiatives to bring back the landlord, such as the £25 million available for bringing back into use flats over shops.

On the local authority front, through the process of competitive housing investment programme allocations we are ensuring that, for the first time, the taxpayers' resources will go where they are most likely to be well spent. That is alongside a hugely expanded estate action programme and two housing action trusts which are now getting under way. That is all in addition to the extensive initiatives outlined by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning in response to questions about repossessions.

The contrast between the two approaches is perfectly clear. Labour has a litany of uncosted promises, fraudulently financed. It is as careless with words as it is with money. Underlying its approach is a strong socialist theme--the municipalisation of private property, the crackdown on owner- occupiers and the removal of tenants' rights. We know what Labour's housing policy means in action. Unfortunately, we can see it in Lambeth, in Southwark, in Hackney and in Liverpool. It is the same old story--neglect the tenants, waste the money, run down the stock and outlaw the private sector.

The Conservative philosophy is that of a pluralist approach--higher spending targeted to get even better value for money, the private landlord recreated, home owners helped more than ever before, tenants given real freedom of choice and, above all, an end to the old local

Next Section

Home Page